Not trivially. The toolserver WP1.0 log records the last date the rating was altered, but this is done by watching the page and logging changes in a database. There's nothing on the wiki to indicate it in most cases, though GA/FA ratings are dated.
Incidentally, for context, enwiki ran a "regrade or expand stubs" contest in December last year. Over a month, it removed (approximately) 50,000 stubs... which sounds great, and then you realise that the system still thinks there are 2,420,000 of them :-) Andrew. On 27 March 2014 06:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > Do we have a way of indicating that something was graded at a given date ? > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 26 March 2014 22:35, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > >> The WP 1.0 model is pretty good (at least across a sample of a hundred or >> so articles) but it's quite labour-intensive. It's also very easy to give >> completely misleading answers, because there's no re-review process - in >> the bulk of cases, articles get rated once and then never looked at again. >> So we have stub articles which are 10,000 characters long with diagrams and >> references and so forth, because no-one ever remembers to re-rate it or >> indeed because people think it's not their business to. >> >> As a result, a recently rated set of articles is a meaningful result, but a >> selection of already-rated articles isn't - there's simply no way to tell >> if they're stale. >> >> It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked - >> but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag, >> aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty >> person-years of work to do it as a once-off, much less a rolling process. >> >> Andrew. >> >> On 25 March 2014 23:35, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Philippe, >> > >> > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia >> > 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever >> > published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size >> > etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to measure >> > article quality. >> > >> > Pete >> > [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Philippe Beaudette >> > <phili...@wikimedia.org>wrote: >> > >> >> During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality. >> >> Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we >> don't >> >> have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with >> >> that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers >> >> into editors.... but I haven't yet seen anything that measures article >> >> quality very well. >> >> >> >> I'd very much like to see that change. I had actually hoped, as we >> >> finished up that strategy, that there would be such a tool by this >> point. >> >> >> >> pb >> >> >> >> >> >> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia >> >> Foundation, Inc. >> >> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : >> >> @Philippewiki<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, rupert THURNER >> >> <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> >> >> > The "more and more" rules is also a concern i experience when >> discussing >> >> > with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main >> >> concern >> >> > is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking >> >> > countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary >> for >> >> > fulfilling legal requirements. Everything else should imo go to >> >> volunteers >> >> > driven rules in the respective language editions. >> >> > >> >> > Rupert >> >> > Am 25.03.2014 17:06 schrieb "Anders Wennersten" < >> >> m...@anderswennersten.se >> >> > >: >> >> > >> >> > > The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is >> up >> >> > to >> >> > > the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000 >> >> edits >> >> > > in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words >> in >> >> > > various languages and with very different opinions on the subject, >> it >> >> > will >> >> > > be a challenge for the Board to come to a common standpoint if it as >> >> all >> >> > is >> >> > > possible >> >> > > >> >> > > Stephen LePorte writes: /The !vote is one strong indicator of the >> >> > > importance of addressing this topic/, in which I fully agree >> >> > > >> >> > > I would like suggest that the issue of paid editors should become >> one >> >> > area >> >> > > to look when we start the work with the next version of our strategy >> >> plan >> >> > > >> >> > > In our last strategy it stated "more editors" which in reality >> became >> >> > > about the same number but where a few became semi-professional who >> make >> >> > an >> >> > > increasing percentage of all edits. And I believe we should instead >> of >> >> > > "more editors" had stated "more, better articles with higher >> quality" >> >> and >> >> > > then been more open to means to reach that goal (where more editors >> >> could >> >> > > had been one mean) >> >> > > >> >> > > In the same way I would like something like "more, better articles >> with >> >> > > higher quality" to be a goal for next five year strategy plan and >> where >> >> > > paid edits could be one mean to reach that goal, but which then need >> to >> >> > be >> >> > > supported with proper guidelines recommendations etc. >> >> > > >> >> > > Personally I am a bit concerned that we introduce more and more >> >> elaborate >> >> > > rules for qualified editing at the same time the base technique is >> >> > getting >> >> > > more complicated (wikidata is great but it puts higher demand on >> skill >> >> > for >> >> > > editors). I do not see that this trend necessary means higher >> treshhold >> >> > for >> >> > > new beginner, as other tools like visual editors make it easier to >> >> start. >> >> > > But I do beleive the treshhold to become a qualified a >> >> > "semi-professional >> >> > > editor" IS becoming higher. And perhaps the receipt for last five >> >> years - >> >> > > more semiprofessional - is not a viable option for next five years >> >> > > >> >> > > Anders >> >> > > >> >> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_ >> >> > > contributions_amendment >> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list >> >> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> > > Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> , >> >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org >> ?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list >> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> , >> >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
